151 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Because "Oh yay, more darkspawn to easily massacre, I've only done this 15 times in a row" gets old.

If you're gonna have a dungeon that long, mix it up with guys like Ruck more effectively.

Keep in mind I used the 6x4 vs. 4x6 argument for a reason.  I still want my 24 of content, I'd just prefer a greater variety of settings, stakes, and gameplay.  Notice how I didn't go so far as to make it more extreme like, 1x24.  I don't want quests to take place in single tiny cells, either.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 novembre 2010 - 10:43 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because "Oh yay, more darkspawn to easily massacre, I've only done this 15 times in a row" gets old.

If you're gonna have a dungeon that long, mix it up with guys like Ruck more effectively.

Considering Origins was about the blight thats the reason there were so many darkspawn. I agree a better creature variety would be nice, but I've noticed the last few releases that areas be they surface or dungeon have tended to get smaller and smaller as graphics fidelity has gone up. Not too sure I'm a big fan of that to be honest.

A Majority of Origin's side quests being a perfect example, travel to spot on map, kill everything on that one 24x24 (if that) map grid, quest over. You'd think with all their years of experience in these types of titles, they could make side quests a bit more interesting than that.

[upsettingshorts]

Well the same argument applies to "Yay more werewolves to slaughter."



If they can't give me say, Deus Ex style 3-4 paths to complete what is essentially a static part of the adventure (from approaching the entrance to the Werewolves den right up until the point they finally capitulate and ask to parley, it's the same experience every time) then I would prefer if that static section of what is essentially dungeon crawling be shorter. I understand the immersion argument when it comes to the Deep Roads, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that to me I dread actually physically replaying those sections because they do not change, and they are so repetitive.

[Dave of Canada]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I understand the immersion argument when it comes to the Deep Roads, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that to me I dread actually physically replaying those sections because they do not change, and they are so repetitive.

I have a save after the Deep Roads right before the "important choices". Should I want to replay the game, I can completely ignore the damned place and just dive into a game with barely any choices accomplished. It really helps make DA:O replayable.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Well I wouldn't mind it if they were optional, however you are pretty much forced to traverse the length, there are no shortcuts on dwarven highways apparently



Granted I'd still rather traverse that than undergo the eye torture that is the fade quest one more time

[Greed1914]

For me, it's never about how long the game is, but how much I enjoy my time with it.  If a game is 30 hours long but I feel like ten hours of that was dull and just there to pad the game, then I'd rather it just be 20 hours.  If the game is 10 hours and I love every minute, then I'm not going to gripe about it being short.

[addiction21]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Well I wouldn't mind it if they were optional, however you are pretty much forced to traverse the length, there are no shortcuts on dwarven highways apparently

Granted I'd still rather traverse that than undergo the eye torture that is the fade quest one more time

I agree the Dwarves need to put a carpool lane into their underground highways. We got four people allready so no worries of getting a ticket.

[Nyaore]

Greed1914 wrote...

For me, it's never about how long the game is, but how much I enjoy my time with it.  If a game is 30 hours long but I feel like ten hours of that was dull and just there to pad the game, then I'd rather it just be 20 hours.  If the game is 10 hours and I love every minute, then I'm not going to gripe about it being short.

I feel much the same way.

A longer game would be ideal, don't get me wrong, but only if those hours are all used as effectively as possible. It should also be pointed out that length is very rarely an indication of a good game. It's the quality of the content that makes a game shine, not the amount of hours that are crammed into it. If 50-80% of a 40 hour game is little more than a mindless grind fest, would some of the people here still consider the length to be worth it? And what about cases where it can take you twenty hours of gameplay to even begin to fully enjoy the experience, as was my situation with the latest installment in the Final Fantasy series?
Length only works to a game's advantage when it is used to it's full advantage, and not for the sake of simply adding excess time to an otherwise finished story. If the story writers feel they can create a tighter feeling story by condensing the length and removing the superfluous scenes from the narrative, then that's their prerogative.

Modifié par Nyaore, 02 novembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
A Majority of Origin's side quests being a perfect example, travel to spot on map, kill everything on that one 24x24 (if that) map grid, quest over. You'd think with all their years of experience in these types of titles, they could make side quests a bit more interesting than that.

We certainly can, as demonstrated by, in fact, Origins. But let me ask this: if every quest is as varied and multifacted as the main quests, are there, in fact any side quests at all?

Sometimes it's good to go find some rebels and punch them in the throat. Why? Because they're full of juicy, juicy XP. And if you don't want to do it? Then don't!

[ShrinkingFish]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
A Majority of Origin's side quests being a perfect example, travel to spot on map, kill everything on that one 24x24 (if that) map grid, quest over. You'd think with all their years of experience in these types of titles, they could make side quests a bit more interesting than that.

We certainly can, as demonstrated by, in fact, Origins. But let me ask this: if every quest is as varied and multifacted as the main quests, are there, in fact any side quests at all?

Sometimes it's good to go find some rebels and punch them in the throat. Why? Because they're full of juicy, juicy XP. And if you don't want to do it? Then don't!

Personally. I'm a fan of punching rebels in the throat. So I'll opt to do so at each opportunity.

Thanks for the side quests!

[Verona_Giovanni]

Please, oh please dont make it shorter than DA:O. I would be so heart broken. I beat FU2 in 5 hours and wanted to cry. I need DA2 to be at least as long as DA:O. I havent gotten a decent RPG since DA:O and DA:A.

[Tiax Rules All]

Sorry, it will be shorter, exaclty how much shorter is not known but the assurance we got that it is longer then Awakenings doesn't really make me feel better about it.

[elearon1]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
I agree fully, but I also believe that there are cases where making something shorter is, in fact, a big part of making it better. Every book is made stronger by an editor, even if all they do is cut out superflous words and make zero content suggestions.

Well, I'd say that is about all the verification we need that DA2 will be significantly shorter than the original.  So long as I get 40 hours of gameplay, though, I will be happy.  If it turns out to be much less than that I'll feel gypped. (not that shorter games are by definition bad - but compared the length of the original something like 20-30 hours would be a vast disappointment; not to mention it would mean the entire nature of the game would have to be changed to compensate) 

[Dave of Canada]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Because they're full of juicy, juicy XP.

Now I'm thirsty.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because "Oh yay, more darkspawn to easily massacre, I've only done this 15 times in a row" gets old.

It didn't need more stuff to kill in it.  It just needed to be longer.

I think
the Deep Roads would have been improved by taking exactly the same
encounters it had and spreading them out over twice the area.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

A Majority of Origin's side quests being a perfect example, travel to spot on map, kill everything on that one 24x24 (if that) map grid, quest over. You'd think with all their years of experience in these types of titles, they could make side quests a bit more interesting than that.

A good way to improve those quests would be to make travelling to those areas possible even if you don't have the relevant quest in your journal.

That kind of linearity first entered BioWare's games in BG2, and it's time for it to go away.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It didn't need more stuff to kill in it.  It just needed to be longer.

I think the Deep Roads would have been improved by taking exactly the same encounters it had and spreading them out over twice the area.

I wouldn't have hated that.  From where I sit it woulda been a sideways move.  Just using your clarification to clarify mine.

My "ideal" answer in cases where I feel static play fields can be improved is almost always to cite Deus Ex. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 novembre 2010 - 07:08 .

[SPECS030]

Saibh wrote...

I think replayability is important to note. If the game is shorter but has more replay value, I'm perfectly happy. I don't think the different Origins added that much in terms of replay to me.

Was about to post this then i decided to keep reading down the 1st page. but yeah as long as i can play through the game multiple times and not be sick of it ill be happy with it... plus its bioware and they havnt let me down yet

[LTD]

God knows world has already seen enough of 15-25 hour long action packed ghost train rides claiming to be RPGs.

I swear, this is first and last time in ages I end up following discussion/hype around a yet-to-be-released game.

In my infinite naivety,  I came here believing  a sequel of an epic RPG would seem like it turns out to be another epic RPG.  After getting violated by thread after thread of depressing news about various simplifications, I pray I could escape back into blissful and  utter ignorance and just wait&see how the game turns out to be.

[NoAngel89]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Because they're full of juicy, juicy XP.

Now I'm thirsty.

lol thats ...... an interesting image lol

[NoAngel89]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Sorry, it will be shorter, exaclty how much shorter is not known but the assurance we got that it is longer then Awakenings doesn't really make me feel better about it.

awakening roughly about 13 hours..... some beat it in 20-25 hours (find that hard to believe)..... and some in 5 hours. First time playing through, I'm hoping its a nice 35 hours. As long as a story has good strutcure and plot. Should kinda make up for it

[NoAngel89]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
A Majority of Origin's side quests being a perfect example, travel to spot on map, kill everything on that one 24x24 (if that) map grid, quest over. You'd think with all their years of experience in these types of titles, they could make side quests a bit more interesting than that.

We certainly can, as demonstrated by, in fact, Origins. But let me ask this: if every quest is as varied and multifacted as the main quests, are there, in fact any side quests at all?

Sometimes it's good to go find some rebels and punch them in the throat. Why? Because they're full of juicy, juicy XP. And if you don't want to do it? Then don't!

I have to disagree abit there, I thought the side missions were placed very conviently along with your main quest, so you get that out of the way, because of that method it didn't feel too much of a hassle, but instead felt like part of the game. Made gameplay fun and flowing. Instead of going to some random part of nowhere, that isn't related to any quest, the pacing is they got for the side quest is good. Bioware did very well in that aspect in making a side quest not feel like a chore. So the experince shows with setups like this, which is one of the things I think is genius.

Plus thats what a side quest is.... what you said CoS. Its how they set it up, is what makes the differences.

[Sharuko]

I liked the way Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 was handled. If you wanted to do the main story and mission you could do it in 20-30 hours. But if you did every side quest and other extras in those games you could go as long as 50-60 hours.  It gave us options instead of forcing us to play this many hours.

I love DA:O and yes I felt the main story was long. Long is not always bad, but for the average gamer it is probably better to give them an option how long they have to go.

I am hoping DA2 has at least 30 hours of main mission gameplay.

Modifié par Sharuko, 02 novembre 2010 - 10:15 .

[The Masked Rog]

Fact is that no matter how much I love long games I don't have the time (and sometimes the patience) to go through 80 hour games. If I get 35 hours of action and storyline packed gameplay I will be happy.

[Sharuko]

Also, to add I felt the Dalish camp area was perfect in terms of length.  It was stop and go with many things to see in the process.  I also felt the Fade and Deep Roads was too long and dragged on, the only part of the game I did not like was the Fade even though I found it interesting.  Deep Roads was fine but it dragged on at times.

I actually bought DA:O on release, quit half way through and started playing again recently.  When I actually stuck through and played I was amazing at how great this game is and how I missed out on it for so long.  So much content and voice acting and attention to detail.

Most consumers have short attention spans, even if they want a long game they want different things while in the game.  If the Fade and Deep Roads was stop and go and had variations and more characters or story it wouldn't have felt like it dragged on.  Same scenery, monsters, and story within one quest feels long.  While for me the Dalish camp had the forest, then the castle then the werewolf den then we interact with great characters.

Modifié par Sharuko, 02 novembre 2010 - 10:16 .

[_THE GOD]

i loved origins took me 114 hrs to complete seeing as how it was my first real rpg..(fallout3 excluded) i was impressed with how much gameplay it offered..i loved DAO to death but needless to say some parts dragged on..if DA2 is atleast 35-50 hrs,with some replay value and the story is epic then its $60 well spent